MANGAL Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in R.S.A. 1113 of 1966 while the Gram Panchayat-defendant is the appellant in R.S.A. 1183 of 1966. the Gram Panchayat of village, Faizabad, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , for ejectment of the plaintiff alleging that he was in unauthorised possession of Shamilat deh which was vested in the Panchayat. The Assistant Collector ordered ejectment and the appeal preferred by the present plaintiff was dismissed by the Collector, Mohindergarh. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which the two second appeals arise for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit land, for an injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering with his possession and to declare the order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector illegal and void. The learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Mohindergarh held that property was shamilat deh which vested in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge, Sangrur, held that the plaintiff was in possession of one-third share of the land as owner and 2/3rd share as tenant. He further held that the one-third share which the plaintiff held as owner did not vest in the Gram Panchayat while the remaining two-third share vested in the Gram Panchayat. He held that the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector were invalid to the extent of one-third share, but valid in regard to the remaining two-third share. In the result, he decreed the suit in regard to the one-third share and dismissed the suit in regard to the two-third share. Both the plaintiff and defendant have preferred the appeals.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff was that the plaintiff could not be said to be in unauthorised possession of any portion of the land while the contention of the defendant was that the suit was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 .

(3.) In R.S.A. 1071 of 1966, a case identical on facts, I had held that a suit like the present was barred. I had referred to the decision of Jain, J. in Dieya Ram V. State of Haryana, 1971 PunLJ 19 and the decision of Sharma J. in Mawashi V. Gram Sabha, Daulatabad, 1973 PunLJ 264 which supported my conclusion. I had observed there that in an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, the authorities constituted under the Act had the jurisdiction to decide the relevant questions before ordering ejectment and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit canvassing the correctness of the decision of the authorities constituted under the Act was barred by Section 13. I had, however, pointed out that a suit would lie in cases where the authorities constituted under the Act acted without jurisdiction.